Blu-Ray disc use receding faster than expected

[Anthony Lelli]

bluray scares people because of the idiotic hdmi restrictions and controls (internet connection? really? so they can monitor what the $@#$@#$$ I watch?. As a storage is not big enough (and not reliable enough): much better if you use hard disks, that are easy to copy in one shot instead of a bag of disks to be changed one after the other. For distribution? come on... a flash drive is WAY easier
lapalisse...

[Nick Danaluk]

Not everybody is willing to pay extra for a Blu-Ray option. If I did weddings I would give a DVD and offer to upload to their Vimeo or YouTube account for extra $. I only archive 60 days because I shoot at least 1GB daily and after 8 years of work it would cost too much to maintain. I also do not want the responsibility of being the one to archive everything for everybody because sh*t happens, you move, things get lost or damaged.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Anthony Lelli

bluray scares people because of the idiotic hdmi restrictions and controls (internet connection? really?

It may have an OPTION for those restrictions for prerecorded discs, and a player may restrict copying etc, or output to anything to other than a simple display, but that doesn't need to be enabled. (And for something like a wedding video I wouldn't expect it to be.)

Originally Posted by Anthony Lelli

As a storage is not big enough (and not reliable enough): much better if you use hard disks, that are easy to copy in one shot .........

Hard disks are hopeless for long term storage, certainly for putting on a shelf and then trying to access a few months later, that's the whole point. It's better if they can be spun up about once a month, but even then the lifespan of the data is likely to be far lower than on an optical disc.

If you're talking about permanently powered RAID arrays it's a different matter (drives will still fail, but the data should survive with care) but that's hardly very convenient for home storage of wedding/holiday etc videos.....

Flash drives have some advantages for such as delivery, but they don't solve the long term storage problem. Data on such is not likely to be as permanent as on optical discs, and they're much more expensive/GB.

Originally Posted by Nick Danaluk

I only archive 60 days because I shoot at least 1GB daily and after 8 years of work it would cost too much to maintain. I also do not want the responsibility of being the one to archive everything for everybody because sh*t happens, you move, things get lost or damaged.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that, not unless your contract with a client specifies you have a requirement to guarantee storage.

But what we're saying is that therefore it's in the clients best interests that whatever you supply to them should be as future proof as possible - precisely because you are not archiving it yourself, and they can't come back to you. If they are prepared to make LTO backups, or their own RAID system, fine, but that's hardly sensible or practical for a couple who simply want a wedding video done! And for such I maintain that optical disc (DVD for SD, BluRay for HD) is the best and most viable option currently possible, at least in the long term.

No, not everybody may be willing to pay extra for the HD version, but the experience of my friend is that (when properly promoted) enough people *are* to make it worthwhile - very worthwhile. You don't sit back and say "hardly anybody has asked me for Blu-Ray", you promote it additionally to the DVD copy, and yes, you offer to put it online as well. In his case, he's got sample versions of weddings in HD and SD for comparison, and showing those to clients with the words "and even if you can't play HD at the moment, wouldn't you like this quality in the future......" apparently does wonders...... :-)

[Anthony Lelli]

Originally Posted by David Heath

It may have an OPTION for those restrictions for prerecorded discs, and a player may restrict copying etc, or output to anything to other than a simple display, but that doesn't need to be enabled. (And for something like a wedding video I wouldn't expect it to be.)

I wasn't referring to the "option". I was talking about the general idea of the average bestbuy buyer put in front of a list of mandatory complicated equipment with impossible to remember codes and chips (not the ones you eat) or the blu-ray movie will not work at all. And THAT scares people away. So the idea was idiotic right from the very start.

[Mark Fry]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

I think the whole idea of needing to archive for decades is totally pointless unless it is of some historical value. Whether optical storage outlasts solid state, is to my mind purely of limited technical interest. I have archive copies of weddings going back to 1983, on Betamax, VHS, Umatic and DVD. That totals well over 2000 weddings and I have only once been asked if I could supply a copy after more than a few months. That was for a seven year old wedding, where the couple had the original stolen.

Many of the couples that I filmed are probably long since divorced, many others would have copied them themselves and there is no contractual obligation on me to store for years. With corporate work, none of the companies that I have dealt with over the years would dream of using years old footage for current promotions and many of them also stopped trading years ago.

So apart from broadcasters and historians, the requirement for long term archiving in my opinion is very limited.

Roger

That sort of short-term approach may be OK when you're just a hired hand making cheesy corporate promos. I shoot things specifically to keep a record of them, and I suspect many other people do, too

I watch my old productions from time to time, and I still sell a few copies from the back-catalogue. I even use my archive for new projects now and then. I recently produced a short film using footage from the 1960s and 70s shot on Super-8 cine, from the 1990s shot on S-VHS and from the 2000s shot on mini-DV. I should have had something from the 1980s, but that was on 8mm video and the tape was unplayable. I had versions of the cine that had already been transferred to VHS (unusable) and later to mini-DV (OK), but some new reels had come to light, so I rigged up my dad's old projector and copied them to mini-DV too.

My dad still has some 16mm cine film shot by his father in the 1940s. Priceless now.

[Donald McPherson]

And there I was the other night watching a 1921 home 16mm home movie. It would be a shame if we lost all these historical events. Important or not.

[Kate Spiegel]

The real problem is the xbox one. It has a bluray player that does not play bd-r.

[Bruce Dempsey]

Whatever delivery media you use, for the sake of the videography industry, please discourage in a most rigorous manner the practice of delivering SD.
Do not fool yourself into believing that your clients want DVD.
They are relying on you to provide them with 2014 quality video. At least as good as the stuff they watch when not viewing your efforts.
Never mind all the ya-buts.
Most everything they watch on screens is fantastic quality. You want your video to hold its own and not have to say "well it's what they asked for" .

[Noa Put]

Right now I still do deliver dvd's but the HD digital files on a usb stick as well, those are much more versatile as they can play them on a tv with the usb stick or on their laptop, their ipad, their iphone. I have not received a single request for blu ray the past months and non of my booking for next year have that request either. It does surprise me none of my clients have a blu-ray players yet they have come down in price considerably, they all do have a lcd tv so they would benefit from one. I don't push selling a BR disc though but sell the HD files with every package.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Many people would benefit from a BD player. If nothing else, it will likely include a USB port with modern codecs that can play back the HD video files you deliver on a memory device. That's probably more convenient than hooking up a PC via HDMI to watch the video on a TV.

New TVs have USB ports and codecs also, but a TV upgrade is a bigger commitment - and they don't offer BD playback.

[Nick Danaluk]

I would upload all video to a clients YouTube or Vimeo, but they want the flexibility of a DVD of not needing to be online to view it.

In addition, I would prefer to put daily video on a USB drive, but branded 2GB units cost $5 each while a DVD still costs 20 cents. I can't use non-branded cheap chinese USB drives because they always fail. I can't absorb an expense that goes from less than $10 to over $100.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Bruce Dempsey

Whatever delivery media you use, for the sake of the videography industry, please discourage in a most rigorous manner the practice of delivering SD.
Do not fool yourself into believing that your clients want DVD.
They are relying on you to provide them with 2014 quality video. At least as good as the stuff they watch when not viewing your efforts.
Never mind all the ya-buts.

Sorry but here is MY "ya-but"...

I just finished a project for a healthcare client that will be PRIMARILY viewed in HD on their website BUT they also have locations that can't stream video due to IT blocking streaming media so they requested 200 DVD-Video copies also because of the navigability. We delivered two videos in 6 languages so the ability to navigate IN THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE to the right content was key.

Every healthcare office in their system has a TV and DVD/VHS combo player sitting on a cart, not a BluRay.

Please don't presume that just because YOUR business model doesn't support DVDs in this day and age that there is ZERO need..

And yes, the SD material ISN'T as pretty but the message is FAR more important than "pretty".

[Bruce Dempsey]

very cool project shaun
thanks for the info
and please don't take anything I say personally, as I'm not intending disrespect for anyone's work nor am I professing to know anything
btw speaking of professing, back in the late 60's my radio instructor, Essa W. Joung worked in Winnipeg on "Jake and The Kid" a great CBC radio play based on stories by W. O Mitchell but those days were black and white and a whole nother story

[Derek McCabe]

Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich

Sorry but here is MY "ya-but"...
Every healthcare office in their system has a TV and DVD/VHS combo player sitting on a cart.

You can count the days when you will not see these anymore... go into any BestBuy and see what the cheapest "tv" they sell and the cheapest "dvd' player.

A 32" flat screen is now about $200. A 40" flat screen is under $300.

They DON'T sell DVD players anymore, they are ALL Blu-Ray players - backward compatible to play DVDs... they start at $49.. $200 for a top line Bliu-Ray player. Yes.. $49 for a Blu-Ray player. Wal-Mart was blowing out DVD players for $25... last Christmas. $25!

I also noticed that Sony DOESN'T MAKE A FLATSCREEN TV under 50" any more.. I bought a 40" Bravia last year... they don't make them that small anymore.. discontinued. The average 40" "lower quality" flat screen TV was well under $300.

How much lower do they have to go until EVERYONE has a 40" flatscreen and Blu-Ray player? I would say less than a year.

DVD format is not dead, as mentioned the navigation is still a useable format.. but the DVDs will be played on.. Blu-Ray players.

I also did notice quite a few UHD and 4K screen under $1000. Some large ones went up to $7000. It was just a few years ago when a 55" 1080p flatscreen was $2000... now they are $500.

[Tim Polster]

We can only hope Derek, but one year is way too optimistic imho.

You will know that day has arrived when one can roll up at a live event they are filming and ONLY offer Blu-ray (without sacrificing sales). How long do you think it will take for that scenario to happen? If ever...